Is a female size 16 fat?

[MissRibena]

When you look at how much our behaviour has in common with other higher mammals it seems absurd to me to ignore the genetic and therefore subconscious and instinctive link.

I was also suggesting that since we have no real idea what was regarded as the ideal by the masses hundreds of years ago, as the historical record is confined to one very narrow group, it is not a good idea to construct a sociological argument around the images that we do have.

I wasn't talking about portraits; I was talking about the practice of paying an artist to put your wives, daughters of mothers face on the Virgin Mary or whomever in their latest Church commissioned painting.
.

(I don't know how to tackle your quotes bit by bit, so I have to do it paragraph at a time - sorry)

Re the first point. I'm not saying ignore it but because it is unproven how much is from our genes and how much is cultural then we have to be careful. I believe it is dangerous to give genes too much credit for how we are - it restricts us from pushing bounderies and progressing.

Why would wealthy men fancy different-looking women to the masses at any time in history? Fair enough, the wealthy man might have more of a chance of getting the woman of his dreams into bed but that doesn't stop the poor man dreaming of her.

I don't think that men paid for their female relatives faces to be tranposed on religious paintings in the Rennaissance. Have you something in particular in mind? Allegorical paintings were more common in later centuries but still not the norm, especially for women. And even then, works in the history painting genre (incl. religious art works) tended to follow the prescribed classical "ideal" beauty; a generic type of beauty based on proportion etc. not generally to be found in nature at all but rather based on sculpture surviving from ancient Greece and Rome and also based on writings by the likes of Vitruvius.

Rebecca

 

[Purple]

Ok, now I'm in way over my head. I can't back up my arguments with reports or examples (nothing new there), just call it a gut feeling.

 

[MissRibena]

Fair enough Purple, but for the record, to the best of my knowledge, the kind of artwork you mention simply didn't happen as a matter of course at that time. Men, artists in particular, did paint themselves into some paintings but this was a novelty aside, rather than the main purpose of the artwork and are known as Bystander Portraits; Raphael's School of Athens is an example. I can't think of any religious paintings where named people's faces were painted in as subsitutes Christs/Saints/Virgins. I think it might even have been sacreligious although I think Rubens (somewhat later) for one was fond of himself in this regard. I know that certain religious poses were popular for portraits, for instance, Albrecht Durer (leader of the so-called Northern Rennaissance) painted himself in a pose which we would recognise from Sacred Heart pictures but would have been intended to relfect his faith and gratitude for his talents, rather than any arrogance or Christ-complexes.

Before the allegorical portraits popular in England in the 18th Century, the only instances I can think of where women appeared in similar circumstances were in self portraits of the very few women artists that existed (or we know about), for example Artemisia Gentileschi painted herself as an allegory of "Painting" (the arts were often personified). She's a fascinating figure, btw, for anyone mildly interested in art or women's issues.

Rebecca

 

[OhPinchy]

Wow - well eh this thread has been taken on a pretty spectacular tangent hasn't it? The 'where did our perception of beauty come from?' stuff is all very interesting but has very little to do with the rest of the thread IMO.

Casiopaea - Beyonce is 'fuller-bodied' than someone like Kylie, as is J-Lo. I know lots of lads that would say they are into fuller-bodied women and by this they mean the likes of Beyonce and J-Lo - both toned women but have bigger frames than Kylie, Angelina etc. I don't know many guys who would have the likes of Vanessa Feltz in mind when they say they like fuller-bodied women.

Most women would like to be regarded as attractive by members of the opposite sex for the simple reasons that the more people that are attracted to you the easier it is to find someone for which the feeling is mutual. And for those who have already found that someone, the ego boost of being regarded as attractive can't hurt!

So if a woman would like to be regarded as attractive by men and she asks the question 'am I attractive?' I think the answers that men give in this case are more relevant than the answers given by women. Fellow women can answer 'well I think you are pretty' but only men and lesbians would be in a position to say 'I find you attractive (i.e. you physically turn me on)'.

If you reverse the roles above so that it is a man asking 'am I attractive' I think the same rule applies - the answers given by women and gay men would be more relevant than those given by straight men.

 

[casiopea]

Hi OhPinchy,
Between you and me we'll bring this thread back on track

Beyonce is 'fuller-bodied' .....I don't know many guys who would have the likes of Vanessa Feltz

I just feel your examples are so extreme. Just because I disagree that beyonce is "fuller bodied" does not mean that Im trying to be PC with the term fuller bodied. V Feltz is not fuller bodied either....she is overweight/fat whatever term suits you best. The point I was trying make earlier is that Mariah and Beyonce are not fuller bodied at all, yes Beyonces and JLos butts are more bigger than kylies and tara PT that does not make them "fuller bodied" (kylie, kate moss and tara are extremes). They (B, M, JLo) still have amazing lean bodies and most importantly reiterating what I said earlier, have had an enormous amount money spent on them. In the case of Mariah plastic surgery. These are not realistic bodies for women like me to hold as my "ideal target body" (and that was how this thread was started - is a certain female size ideal/not ideal). I do agree with Purple and his point about sexual context.

Fellow women can answer 'well I think you are pretty' but only men and lesbians would be in a position to say 'I find you attractive (i.e. you physically turn me on)'

Thats actually wrong. Women can find other women attractive and therefore can comment effectively on what is deemed sexually attractive. We are more open that way. It doesnt mean we are bi or gay. Women will quite frequently comment on breasts being pert, not big enough, needing work done. Same with bums, eyes, lips...its not just in a pretty context but also in a whats sexually alluring. For example I would not say Angelina jolie has pretty lips, I would say they are sexy lips. I think most women and men would agree with me.

If you reverse the roles above so that it is a man asking 'am I attractive' I think the same rule applies - the answers given by women and gay men would be more relevant than those given by straight men.

I cant comment on the reverse but I think most people would agree that straight women are more comfortable commenting about other straight women in an attractiveness context. Hence the steorotypical gay man/straight women bestfriends dynamic.

 

[MissRibena]

The 'where did our perception of beauty come from?' stuff is all very interesting but has very little to do with the rest of the thread IMO.
QUOTE]

In fairness, purple did request that the threads be split earlier on.

But as it happens, I do think that the origin and perception of beauty and how it changes over time is closely related to the rest of the thread, because I am convinced that men like what their culture tells them to like far more than following the genes/instincts. The same culture informs women so that is why I agree with casiopea's last point that women are equally qualified to comment on women's beauty or attractiveness as men.

I think the reason men are uncomfortable with commenting on other men's beauty is down to the cultural taboo surrounding homosexuality and the residual homophobic tendancies that many straight men display to a lesser or greater extent.

Without being tangential again ... In Classical Greece, it was all about male beauty. Nobody was particularly concerned with what women looked like; they were basically seen as procreation slaves. The men were far more concerned with the body beautiful and preened to please and impress each other rather than women.

Rebecca